Decaf wrote:
At one point I had decided to leave you alone Hurts, but you're just too dumb and full of pride to know when to quit.
Parasite spewed:
Stupidity will do that to 'ya.

Yes, and we're witnessing a first rate example of that which happens to be staring at your monitor right now

Parasite spewed:
Probably? I'll take that as an admission that you have no proof Saddam was involved with 9/11, being as since you did not submit one iota of evidence and all. Just can't get around that fact, can you?
Decaf wrote:
Did I say I had proof Peacenik? Tell me where I said I had proof that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9/11.
Proof? You've never had proof for anything you've ever said in this forum.

Being that you're a rage blinded Mormon bashing, Bush trashing parasite, I definitely can see how you see nothing but truth in that statement.

parasite spewed:
But you did deny my statement that he was innocent of 9/11, on page 37 of this thread.

Wrong again Sad Sack, I said that Hussein was not the mastermind behind 9/11, and that he probablyhad nothing to do with it. I realize you're desperate to win at least one point here Hurts, but lying isn't going to help you.

parasite spewed:
Innocent of being involved in 9/11? Yup. He was indeed innocent of that.
No, was Hussein a threat to U.S national security just before we attacked in 2003.
parasite spewed:
You answered "No" to my statement that Saddam was innocent of being involved in 9/11. A fact that even Bush AND Cheney later admitted. Will you admit it now??

Look you simpleton, if you follow this line of the debate, you will see that the only one who's been arguing that conservatives were trying to link Hussein with 9/11, is the self absorbed fool sitting in your front of your keyboard. So how about you get this through that pin head of yours and move on?

Very good Hurts, having control of one's own airspace does help in mass murdering neighbor countries. That's why Al Qaeda decided to hijack airplanes and slam them in to our buildings, rather than take us on in a straight up fight.
parasite spewed:
Yup, they did that...on George Bush's watch.

Thanks to eight years of gross neglect and whore mongering by his predecessor.

parasite spewed:
And speaking of that, if mass murder of ones own people is rationale to take out "homicidal wackjobs", what has Bush, Cheney, Rice and company been doing, military wise, while the Sudanese government has been waging a war of genocide against it's own citizens, killing hundreds of thousands (so far) in Darfur? It would seem, under your reasoning, we could and should have taken him out long ago. Just one of numerous examples.
It's been said that America can fight two, maybe three, wars at the same time.
parasite spewed:
Really? Who's the dimwitted moron that said that? Besides you just now, of course. Please provide the link to anyone else stupid enough to say that.

Our former Secretary of Defense said that, you bumbling piece of socialism here, read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/23/international/23CND-MILI.html?ex=1218513600&en=5d55e91261203dd4&ei=5070

There's enough on our plate already. Perhaps if your hero, Master General Barracks, wins the presidency, he can use his military genius to find a better way to fight every oppressive government on this planet/
parasite spewed:
In other words, Bush could care less, militarily, about the genocide going on in Darfur. Out of sight, out of mind. In other words, first things first. Like I said, our plate is full right now. Take a pill Parasite; relax -- you're not very graceful when you're getting your a$$ kicked.

Decaf wrote:
Just how far do you think an unfettered Saddam Hussein would have gone, Peacenik?
parasite spewed:Moot point. He was quite fettered.
A moot point for an anti-Bush simpleton. Hussein was fettered because he had to be stopped, and it sure as hell wasn't by a coward like you.
parasite spewed:No, he was fettered because he could not even fly planes in his own country, and could not go anywhere.

Because he was a homicidal maniac who had to be stopped, and he sure as hell wasn't going to be stopped by a coward like you.

Very good Hurts, you're finally getting it.

parasite spewed:And did I mention he had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD's? Only for the umpteenth time. But given your stupid pursuits of the obvious, I'd've been surprised if you didn't declare it, at least one more time.

Decaf wrote:
Bush trusted the intelligence reports he was given. there's nothing more to say.
parasite spewed:Yes, there is something else to say,

No, there really isn't. Nobody cares that Arianna Huffington, can parrot Dianne Feinstein's accusation that George Bush is a criminal. Pull your head out of liberal biased Huffington Post, and show me an official government declaration stating that Bush has been convicted and sentenced in a court of law.

Actually, I have all these experiences in the Air Force that you're saying I never had, so you get to do some explaining. Are you ready Peacenik? We'll start with an easy one:

Tell me everything you know about T.A.C.
parasite spewed:The Military is full of acronyms. Captain Obvious strikes again!

parasite spewed:Would that be short for Tinker Aerospace Complex or Tactical Air Command? Don't ask me. You're the jackass who insists I was never in the Air force.

So let's try again: Tell me everything you already know about T.A.C, not what you've Googled on the Internet.

Decaf wrote:
I did, however, once ask you the point of the questions on your little quiz, and like a filthy little liar, you said "Nothing. I just want it publicly known how many wives Joseph Smith had". Given your above comment about evidence suggesting "the latter", it has become clear that you're nothing more than a typical Anti-Mormon -- biased to the extreme, not to be trusted, ever.
parasite spewed:Sorry, I never said that, it's not my style.
Sorry, you did say that, and it's exactly your style. It's what any anti-Mormon obsessive would say to deflect an accusation that he's an anti-Mormon obsessive.
parasite spewed:Sorry, I never said that. Should be easy for you to prove, though, if I really did. Supply the link. Got link, liar?

Sorry, you say crap like that when I corner you in your lies. The link is buried somewhere in 2007, so we'll just have to ask you the same question again:

What is your motive when you ask how many wives Joseph Smith had?

Are you denying that you're an anti-Mormon obsessive?
parasite spewed:Yup. There is no such thing as "anti-Mormon history". There is only real Mormon history. Uh-huh. If there were only real Mormon history, then all historians would be in 100% agreement over every single point; there would be zero dispute over anything. Are you trying to tell me that all devotees to Mormon history are in complete, and total unison?

then why do you keep asking the same question about Joseph Smith and plural marriage?
Because it is part of real Mormon history, a part that evidently bothers you very, very much.

I didn't ask you if you thought Joseph Smith and plural marriage were a part of Mormon history, I asked you why you keep asking that same question.

parasite spewed:Now as far as me being "not to be trusted, ever", just to use one example, it seems that you came to accept the fact that Mr. Smith did have numerous wives, including numerous ones who were already married to other men at the time, didn't you? You debated against that one for long time.
No, I came to admit that many historians agreed that Joseph Smith had multiple wives, but only the anti-Mormon historians would agree that he was a pervert and a fraud.
parasite spewed:Once again, there is no anti-Mormon history, only real Mormon history.

Once again, explain to me how every historian is in total agreement on every single point.

parasite spewed:Ah, so unless the peaceful Muslims do not prevent the radical Muslims from doing their thing, then they are part of the problem too?
Very good Peacenik; if one does not become part of the solution, then one becomes an angry little coward, just like you.
parasite spewed:So, if the peaceful Mormons in Southern Utah did nothing to prevent (much less bring to justice afterward) the radicals from killing 120 men women and children at Mountain Meadows, they were part of the problem as well?
Isolated incident, stupid example, and typical counter argument from a bitter anti-Mormon. You'll have to prove that Mormons destroy human beings at the same rate Islamics do, to make that a valid point.
parasite spewed:No, perfect example of you using a particular principle in one instance and not in another.

Wrong. Perfect example of a desperate Bush hating Mormon basher who has to reach back to a single incident from 19th century LDS history, in order to argue on behalf of moderate Islam's chronic negligence toward a growing terrorist problem within their ranks.

parasite spewed:Amazing how there is always an "unless", "if" or something similar when it comes to violence in the name of religion, isn't it? No matter what the religion.
Yes Hurts, I'm sure you believe all Old Testament Prophets were homicidal maniacs like Saddam Hussein and bin-Laden.
parasite spewed:Amazing how there is always an "unless", "if" or something similar when it comes to violence in the name of religion, isn't it? No matter what the religion. Wait, I already said that. Still true.

Amazing how atheists continually insist that reality revolves around their own perception, isn't it?

parasite spewed:So, regarding your other moniker, Adonis2, will you be revealing that you were once on the cover of GQ as well?
Why do you ask Parasite?
parasite spewed:Oh, I imagine a psychiatrist could say a few things about someone who gives uses a self given nickname of "Adonis."Nah, psychiatrists have no use for throw away monikers. The really fun stuff would be sorting all the anti filth festering in that hate filled head of yours

Decaf wrote:
Yes Hurts, Bush turned to Barrack Obama, with his considerable years of military expertise, before making the decision to increase our troops in Afghanistan.
parasite spewed:Must have...Obama has been saying it for a long time...about a year, in fact.
I see. So are you trying to tell me that we haven't had any troops in Afghanistan prior to Obama's revelation from a year ago?
parasite spewed:Oh we have had them there...just not enough.

We've had enough there. You're just pissed off that Al-Qaeda hasn't been able to muster enough strength to break away and start blowing up American buildings again. The heights of stupidity you idiot cynics will go in order to prove George Bush wrong .... shameful, truly shameful ...

parasite spewed:Seems they are in Iraq...the country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD's. Poor Weepy; babbling some nonsensical bull**** about Iraq again sigh -- the heights of stupidity you idiot cynics will go in order to prove George Bush wrong .... shameful, truly shameful ...

Wow! Point by point, Decaf has taken apart any pretense of credibility or intelligence anyone might have thought he had. Good job, Decaf!

Well, looks like Decaf, the technical moron who cannot seem to construct a post without it looking and reading like crap, is back again for more self-immolation. His masochism knows no bounds.

Decaf whined:
TruthHurts wrote:
But you did deny my statement that he was innocent of 9/11, on page 37 of this thread.
Wrong again Sad Sack, I said that Hussein was not the mastermind behind 9/11, and that he probably had nothing to do with it. I realize you're desperate to win at least one point here Hurts, but lying isn't going to help you.
Wow...not the mastermind and "probably" nothing to do with it. Bush and Cheney admitted he had nothing to do with 9/11, with no qualifier of "probably". Why can't you?

Look you simpleton, if you follow this line of the debate, you will see that the only one who's been arguing that conservatives were trying to link Hussein with 9/11, is the self absorbed fool sitting in your front of your keyboard. So how about you get this through that pin head of yours and move on?
Move on? OK, lets move on to the truth instead of your deluded lies. Here's Cheney mentioning, in 2003, supposed ties that Iraq was involved in 9/11, by mentioning that Mohammed Atta supposedly met in Prague with Iraqi security...a meeting that never took place. And for bonus points, Bush closes it out with an admission that there is no evidence Saddam had anything to do wth 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k

Decaf whined:
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf whined
Very good Hurts, having control of one's own airspace does help in mass murdering neighbor countries. That's why Al Qaeda decided to hijack airplanes and slam them in to our buildings, rather than take us on in a straight up fight.
Yup, they did that...on George Bush's watch.
Thanks to eight years of gross neglect and whore mongering by his predecessor.
Naw, I think the fact, and facts they are, that Bush spent the month before playing golf, being briefed that al Qaeda was up to something involving hijacked planes, and chopping wood on the ranch makes him the one responsible.

Decaf whined:
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf whined
It's been said that America can fight two, maybe three, wars at the same time.
Really? Who's the dimwitted moron that said that? Besides you just now, of course. Please provide the link to anyone else stupid enough to say that.
Our former Secretary of Defense said that, you bumbling piece of socialism here, read:

Rumsfelds Ramblings

Well, I did ask you to show me a link to anyone else stupid enough to say that, and you did provide a link to someone stupid enough to say that. Still not what he said, though. All I can see him talk about is two MAJOR REGIONAL wars, not three. You must have added the three part on your own. You should have been more specific. If you had said "It's been said by an incompetent and disgraced ex-Secretary of Defense who resigned because Bush did not have the guts to fire him that America can fight two, maybe three, wars at the same time", I'd have known exactly who you were referring to. Further, in the article you linked, he was talking about taking on North Korea and Iraq at the same time (talk about utter insanity). Going beyond the utter stupidity of that premise, that does not let you off the hook regarding my Darfur question, because we are not currently at war with North Korea, are we? So once again Decaf, why is Bush ignoring the genocide going in in Darfur? Why don't we go in and stop the killing?

So let's try again: Tell me everything you already know about T.A.C, not what you've Googled on the Internet.
But I'm not the one claiming to have been in the Air Force, am I? So why don't you tell us all about T.A.C, stuff that can't be googled on the internet.

Decaf whined:
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf whined
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf whined
I did, however, once ask you the point of the questions on your little quiz, and like a filthy little liar, you said "Nothing. I just want it publicly known how many wives Joseph Smith had".
Sorry, I never said that, it's not my style.
Sorry, you did say that, and it's exactly your style.
parasite spewedorry, I never said that. Should be easy for you to prove, though, if I really did. Supply the link. Got link, liar?
Sorry, you say crap like that when I corner you in your lies. The link is buried somewhere in 2007
That sounds to me like you cannot provide any evidence to back up your lie. Liar.

What is your motive when you ask how many wives Joseph Smith had?
It's a great starting place. Ever seen a piece of rotten wood that looked fine on the exterior but had a little hole on the surface, so you begin picking at it and pretty soon chips are falling off and the hole gets deeper and before long nothing is left but crumbling chips and rotten sawdust?

Smith's marital situation involving 14 year olds, mothers and daughters, sisters, and women already married to other men is that "little hole" where one begins. It's that simple.

Not for you, but for others reading, here are some of those other holes that begin opening up. And just think, your question led to it.

http://trialsofascension.net/mormon.html

The Church thanks you.

Decaf whined:
TruthHurts wrote:
There is no such thing as "anti-Mormon history". There is only real Mormon history.
Uh-huh. If there were only real Mormon history, then all historians would be in 100% agreement over every single point; there would be zero dispute over anything. Are you trying to tell me that all devotees to Mormon history are in complete, and total unison?
Oh, there is disagreement and dispute and often the real history has to be unpeeled layer by layer over time, but real historians don't go around calling those with differing views "anti". That is reserved for the likes of you and your ilk.

And when faced with differing versions, a wise man always proportions his belief to the evidence. I'm sure you remember Hume's Maxim...I drilled it into you ad nauseum. Nothing has changed, particularly about you not being wise.


Decaf whined:
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf whined
TruthHurts wrote:
So, if the peaceful Mormons in Southern Utah did nothing to prevent (much less bring to justice afterward) the radicals from killing 120 men women and children at Mountain Meadows, they were part of the problem as well?
Isolated incident, stupid example, and typical counter argument from a bitter anti-Mormon. You'll have to prove that Mormons destroy human beings at the same rate Islamics do, to make that a valid point.
No, perfect example of you using a particular principle in one instance and not in another.
Wrong. Perfect example of a desperate Bush hating Mormon basher who has to reach back to a single incident from 19th century LDS history, in order to argue on behalf of moderate Islam's chronic negligence toward a growing terrorist problem within their ranks.
Quit beating around the bush (no pun intended). Why did the people in Southern Utah AND Brigham Young not bring the mass murderers of 120 men, women, and children (mostly women and children) to justice? Does that truth hurt that much? You are a hypocrite of monumental proportions.

Decaf whined:
TruthHurts wrote:
Oh, I imagine a psychiatrist could say a few things about someone who gives uses a self given nickname of "Adonis."
Nah, psychiatrists have no use for throw away monikers.
On the contrary, I think they would see at as being narcissistic, in addition to your plethora of other psychological issues. I've already mentioned masochism, for example...you just keep coming back for more humiliation. You can't help yourself stop, either.

Decaf whined:
TruthHurts wrote:
Seems they are in Iraq...the country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD's.
Poor Weepy; babbling some nonsensical bull**** about Iraq again sigh -- the heights of stupidity you idiot cynics will go in order to prove George Bush wrong .... shameful, truly shameful
Wrong, huh? Here's Bush admitting Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 AND that they had no WMD's . Seems we the American people were wrong to put trust, any trust, in him. He lied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

And for everyones sake, do try to figure out how to post correctly. Your posts are stupid enough from a content standpoint...you don't need to try and make them look stupid visually. At least show us in your next post that you are not a technical retard.

Truth. Decaf and others need their facts told to them by Rush/Sean and or Bill O.

Oops, now you've done it. Thanks to your inflated stupidity, you've forced us to go a whole different direction in this debate.

Code Pink wept:
All I can see him talk about is two MAJOR REGIONAL wars, not three.You must have added the three part on your own. You should have been more specific. So now you want to play the specifics game. OK Parasite, we'll do it your way, but we'll take it one step further; from this point on, there will be no more speculation from either side, over any subject. We will discuss truth, and only truth, in its purest, indisputable form.

Now, are you ready? I will begin. And just to be fair, we'll even start with one of your absolute most favorite subjects in this very, whole, wide, world!

Q. EXACTLY how many wives did Joseph Smith have?

Oh, and one more thing, none of your circular bull**** is allowed from this point on; just give me the exact, indisputable figure -- nothing more, nothing less.

Decaf wrote:
Oops, now you've done it. Thanks to your inflated stupidity, you've forced us to go a whole different direction in this debate.
That's Decaf for let's change the subject...I don't want to defend Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld any more. Hey, I hear you...I would tire of defending those three stooges myself. Darn, and I was so looking forward to hearing about all your Air Force experiences, too.

So now you want to play the specifics game. OK Parasite, we'll do it your way, but we'll take it one step further; from this point on, there will be no more speculation from either side, over any subject. We will discuss truth, and only truth, in its purest, indisputable form.

Now, are you ready? I will begin. And just to be fair, we'll even start with one of your absolute most favorite subjects in this very, whole, wide, world!

Q. EXACTLY how many wives did Joseph Smith have?

Oh, and one more thing, none of your circular bull**** is allowed from this point on; just give me the exact, indisputable figure -- nothing more, nothing less.
OK with me. Before we begin, just so you are aware, none of your whiny "anti-Mormon" moaning. You asked, and everything that happens from this point on is because of you asking, and being too stupid to quit while you were behind. You opened this can of worms again, and I have no sympathy for you. After all, how could anyone have sympathy for someone who calls them Parasite?

Getting to your question, 32-33 well documented ones, according to reputable Mormon historians. Surely you are not going to try a dimwitted, irrational tactic like saying if a specific, exact number cannot be named, none of them count. That's something even more moronic than I think you capable of. Tell me you are not THAT stupid. Last one to try that was wrz. He even said any marriage that a state issued marriage certificate could not be produced for did not count. Nutty, but that was wrz. Will you be joining the ranks of his looniness?

But I digress. According to Richard Bushman, your hand picked Mormon historian (remember?..I sure do) on the subject, the guy whose word, in your Dapto86 days, you said you would accept, Joseph Smith had about thirty additional wives besides Emma.

"Joseph Smith married about thirty additional women, ten of them already married to other men."

Bushman, Richard; Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling, pg 437

In his footnote to that comment, he says he follows Todd Compton, with the exception of Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris. Since Bushman does not agree with her, his "about thirty" comment above actually becomes thirty-two.

Todd Compton, in his book In Sacred Lonliness, the Plural Wives of Joseph Smith puts the number at thirty-three, with eleven being polyandrous marriages. He devotes an entire chapter to all but three of the wives, explaining their early lives, how they married Smith, and their later lives after Smith died. Compton also identified eight other possibles, for whom he considered the evidence too incomplete.

Those are both books (available at Deseret Book, BTW) that folks would have to read. For a quicker internet synopsis, we have:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Thirty-three. Same as Compton.

Last, but certainly not least, we have your comments from your Dapto86 days. Yes, I kept your admission (I believe it was a reply to BishopRick, but I kept it) that you were wrong. You just never know when things will come in handy, do you? You could deny it (the posts on the old forum were deleted, as best as I have been able to tell), but I'm sure you recognize it. I'm also sure Wren would remember.

Dapto86, aka Decaf, wrote:
I have no doubt that there are plenty of question marks in LDS History. Before I joined this forum, my songs of the early Saints were to the tune of polished perfection. Clearly, that thoery's been nuked.

So what am I suppsed to do now? Curl up in the fetal and cry away my church membership? Of course not. People ask "How in the world can you follow a church whose founder was a complete fraud?" My answer has, and always will be, that never should any single person let the opinions, or actions, of another affect his/her relationship with God. Ever.

According to most historians, Joseph Smith had anywhere between 28 - 50+ wives, depending on which resource you use. Many LDS have found this deeply troubling, and have allowed it to shatter their testimonies. My question is, why? In an earlier post, I once stated that I found polygamy to be confusing and unfair. I still do. But does that mean I believe Joseph Smith was a fraud? No. It just means that I don't understand why he did it. I've experienced far too much in my church life to justify throwing it all away based on something I don't understand right now. God imparts his wisdom to us piecemeal. There's no other way to do it. So, I'm convinced we are in this life to be tested; to see if we'll trust God and keep his commandments, not to seek out what is pleasing to our own understanding or to trust in the opinions of men.

People are ultimately going to see what they truly want to see. If You, TH, JB and Wren, decide that Joseph Smith was a fraud, then I respect your opinions, because on paper, it doesn't look very good. But in my case, I've decided to follow the dictates of my conscience, do my part, and let the Lord figure out the rest. It's not my place to judge anyone. There's plenty enough in my own life to worry about.
This was shortly before you deleted your Dapto86 account, and was actually the best thing you ever wrote. Did not even have any name calling in it. Then you went back to your old nasty name calling Dapto86 form as Decaf.

So, Decafto86, how many wives do you think he had.